| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Bob Crane, the notorious former Nixon aide and convert to Islam, says so in a revealing new piece. He's against such violent protests, mind you, and he thinks Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who is making the film, is just trying to provoke such reactions (Wilders explains himself eloquently here and here.) But he does think they would be "natural." "Challenge and Response: The Case of Islamophobic Wilding," by Dr. Robert D. Crane of The Center for Understanding Islam at The American Muslim (thanks to Freedom4Expression):
The challenge posed by Geert Wilders’ ten-minute film attacking the Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam, is political. He is a member of the Dutch parliament and a leader of a far right party that is trying to gain votes by exploiting the growing alienation and hostility between the minority of Muslims in Europe and the majority population.He hopes to provoke radical responses by Muslims in order to support his party’s message that Islam must be purged from Europe and the Qur’an must be banned in public and criminalized even for private reading at home. He knows that some governments and other special interests in the Muslim world will oblige him by using his challenge to the Prophet Muhammad and the religion of Islam in order to consolidate their own power by stealing the thunder from their radical opponents. He has learned from the Danish Cartoons affair how tempting it is for unpopular Muslim governments to prove their legitimacy by facilitating and even provoking well-orchestrated and well-controlled violence against the “enemy”. Some Westerners, of course, have been known to do the same, and Geerts is one of them.
The first response that would be natural among Muslims is to fall into Geerts’ trap and resort to violent protests. Heavy-handed measures against such protests could merely provoke greater violence....
In other words, not only would violent protests from Muslims be "natural," but if non-Muslim authorities do anything to put them down, they'll just get worse. That is, shut up or else, and if you won't shut up, back off -- or else.
And in light of Crane's remarks, don't be surprised if, after Wilders's film comes out, Muslims start once again doin' what comes naturally.
Crane also backs attempts at censorship:
Right now, the Dutch seem to be doing a pretty good job without our help in getting popular support for restricting the access of Geert Wilders’ film within the Dutch media. The Dutch, however, would no doubt never ban it altogether, simply because the Dutch for decades, if not centuries, have had a reputation of liberality....
Pity that, eh?
Crane also claims that he and I were set to debate last November, but that he backed out. This is the first I heard of this:
...It is important to note that Brother Yusuf did not directly debate the rabid preacher, because such a debate would not be conducive to intelligent discussion. This was the reason I backed out of a “debate” on a national hook-up scheduled with Robert Spencer last fall on November 8. On November 6th, I concluded that we were on the same side in warning about and trying to counter the radicals who pose as Muslims, such as Osama bin Laden, who are using religion as a political tool to vent their hatred on everyone who disagrees with them. I told the producer of the show that I would join a two-man panel with Spencer after he had had a chance to read my latest book, which the IIIT is bringing out under the title The Natural Law of Compassionate Justice, more than a hundred pages of which directly expose almost line for line Spencer’s biased reliance on extremist Muslims as source material in his current book, The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion.
While this may be true, if anyone had ever scheduled a debate between Crane and me, I was never told about it. That doesn't mean that it wasn't actually scheduled. One very, very early morning, I got the call for what I thought was a routine and low-key radio interview, only to find myself half-asleep and coffeeless in a debate with Muqtedar Khan of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. So these things happen. But not only did I not know about this purported debate -- also, I never received word from anyone that Crane wanted to debate me, or be on a "two-man panel" with me, after I read his book. Not from Crane, not from the producer of any show, not from anyone. In fact, I didn't even know he had written a new book, much less that a large part of it is devoted to refuting mine, until I read this article.
It's also worth noting at this point, however, that Crane has, in earlier criticism of my work, directly misrepresented the content of Islamic texts. He has even done so in the process of accusing me of doing so. Details here and here. That makes it difficult for me to muster any anxiety over his alleged demolishing of my book The Truth About Muhammad -- if Crane plays as fast and loose with the facts in his book as he did in those earlier articles, then his farrago may fool the credulous and those who really, really want to believe him, but objective observers will be able to find out the truth. For in reality, as I'm sure Crane himself knows full well, I did not rely on "extremist Muslims as source material" for the book, but used instead the earliest material written about Muhammad by pious Muslims. If this is a "biased reliance on extremist Muslims," then other biographers of Muhammad, including Muslims such as Tariq Ramadan, Muhammad Husayn Haykal, Safi ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, and Yahiya Emerick, as well as non-Muslim Islamic apologists such as Karen Armstrong, are guilty of the same thing, since they use the same sources.
But anyway, I'll see if I can get hold of a copy of Crane's book, and am of course happy to debate him anytime, despite his only glancing acquaintance with truth and accuracy, and his indulgence in the familiar tendency to defame my character and motives rather than actually to refute what I'm saying. It's interesting, finally, to note that ol' Bob got it published by the IIIT -- the International Institute of Islamic Thought. The IIIT was named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum (pdf here) as part of the Brotherhood's "organizations of our friends" dedicated to "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands ... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions."
Got anything to say about that, Bob?
Posted by Robert at January 26, 2008 5:09 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
When one is supposed to fight and kill and maim and rape and murder and mayhem until there is no god but allah, or when one is supposed to fight and kill and maim and rape and murder and mayhem for the sake of allah, then one falling into protest can in no sense be natural! One is already "protesting."
Oh allah, may your vision of cross amputations for those who create mischief upon the land, fall upon all your loyal adherents who verily create mischief in the lands. This way infidels can easily spot them!
Posted by: David England![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 26, 2008 7:39 AM
Islam, fascists, multiculturalists, they have no morals. Their morals and common sense is pushed back by their ideologies. They will play every possible trick in the book, they will hit below the belt, lying and confusing, personal attacks, false accusations......all to progressively continue their march for their utopian dream.
I can't begin to imagine the amount of slander, false accusations, lying and down right deceitful tactics used against Mr. Spencer, and those that agree with him but this gives another glimpse of the dishonest dhimmis doing their part aware or unaware in perpetuating the destruction of western civilization as we used to know it.
at January 26, 2008 7:57 AM
Two previoius postings offering a bit more on Robert Crane:
#1.
Robert Crane (mostly) on Robert Crane [judge for yourself the mythomaniac component, such as that business about being imprisoned at the age of 20 and escaping “twice” from “the Gulag Archipelago”]:
“Dr. Robert Dickson Crane (born on March 26, 1929} is the former adviser to the late U.S. President Richard Nixon, and is former Deputy Director (for Planning) of the U.S. National Security Council. He has authored or co-authored more than a dozen books and over 50 professional articles on comparative legal systems, global strategy, and information management. His great-grandfather was one of the financial founders of Northwestern University.
Contents
1 Early Life and Education
2 Political Career
3 Muslim Activism
4 Personal Life
5 Publications
Early Life and Education
Dr. Crane was born in Cambridge, MA. In 1945, at the age of 16, he entered Harvard University to study Russian as the first step in becoming an international journalist. In 1948, he became the first American permitted to study at a university in Occupied Germany, having been accepted at the University of Munich. There he studied the sociology of religion and prepared a book on the phenomenon of totalitarian ideology and on the spiritual dynamics of resistance against it. As a result of “field work” with the anti-Communist underground in Eastern Europe, he celebrated his twentieth birthday as a prisoner in Stalin’s Gulag Archipelago, from which he miraculously escaped twice.
Upon his return to the USA, Dr. Crane got his B.A. from Northwestern University, Evanstion, IL, in 1956, graduating summa cum laude, with majors in political science, economic planning, Sino-Soviet studies. He went on to obtain his J.D. from Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA in 1959 with specialty in comparative legal systems and international investment. His thesis was titled "The Accomomodation of Ethics in International Commercial Arbitration" and was published in the Arbitration Journal, Fall 1959. At Harvard, he also founded the Harvard International Law Journal and acted as the first president of the Harvard International Law Society.
Dr. Crane was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in 1960.
Political Career
In 1962, Dr. Crane became one of the four co-founders of the first Washington-based foreign-policy think-tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). In 1966, he left to become Director of Third World Studies at the first professional futures forecasting center, The Hudson Institute, led by Herman Kahn.
From the time of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 until the beginning of Nixon’s victorious campaign for the presidency in 1967, Dr. Crane was also his principal foreign policy adviser, responsible for preparing a “readers digest” of professional articles for him on the key foreign policy issues. During the campaign, Dr. Crane collected his position papers into a book, Inescapable Rendezvous: New Directions for American Foreign Policy, with a foreword by Congressman Gerald Ford, who succeeded Nixon as President.
On January 20, 1969, Dr. Crane moved into the White House as Deputy Director (for Planning) of the National Security Council. The next day, the Director, Henry Kissinger, fired him because they differed fundamentally on every single key foreign policy issue. Kissinger was determined to orchestrate power in order to preserve the status quo. Crane was equally determined to promote justice as the only source of dynamic and long-range stability.
In 1977-78 he spent a year as Principal Economic and Budget Adviser to the Finance Minister in the Emirate of Bahrain.
In September 1981, President Reagan appointed Dr. Crane to be U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, but this also was short-lived. President Reagan’s best friend, Judge William Clark, who became Director of the National Security Council, wanted Crane, as the first Muslim American ambassador, to pursue two-track diplomacy by developing relations with the various Islamist movements in the Middle East and North Africa. The new Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, whose entire career was promoted by Henry Kissinger, wanted none of this and had him fired.
Muslim Activism
From the early 1980s, Dr. Crane has worked full-time as a Muslim activist in America. From 1983 to 1986, he was the Director of Da’wa at the Islamic Center on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C. In 1986 he joined the International Institute of Islamic Thought as its Director of Publications, and then helped to found the American Muslim Council, serving as Director of its Legal Division from 1992 to 1994.
From 1994 until the present time he has headed his own research center, the Center for Policy Research, located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Washington, D.C. Since 1996 he has also been a board member of the United Association for Studies and Research and Managing Editor of its Middle East Affairs Journal. He is also an editor for the online magazine The American Muslim.
Dr. Crane was also the founding President of the American Muslim Bar Association.
Personal Life
Dr. Crane is married to Diana Huntress, and they have five grown children. His hobbies include long- distance running and mountaineering. He speaks English, German, Russian, Spanish, French and Arabic.
Publications
His more than a dozen authored or co-authored books include:
Détente: Cold War Strategies in Transition, Dulles and Crane, CSIS, Praeger, 1965
Planning the Future of Saudi Arabia: A Model for Achieving National Priorities, Praeger, 1978
Shaping the Future: Challenge and Response, Tapestry, 1997.
These books have been augmented by numerous monographs, including the following produced under the Islamic Institute for Strategic Studies before the events of 9/11:
Meta-law: An Islamic Policy Paradigm, 49 pages
The Grand Strategy of Justice, 83 pages
Kosovo and Chechnya: Products of the Past, Harbingers of the Future, 32 pages
The Role of Religion in America, 24 pages
The Muslim Challenge in America and the World, 35 pages"
The bizarre nature of Dr. Robert Dickson Crane should be apparent to everyone. No doubt a reading of his pamphlets, listed at the end with such pride, would do much to buttress that suspicion.
One piquant detail, however, that has nothing to do with him, is his wife's maiden name: Diana Huntress. Now that is something. And it is possibly the only undisturbing part of the biography of this psychically marginal creature, who apparently once made it into the National Security Council -- one more alarming sign of criminal negligence at the top, for it is not only the traitors of the Hanson Soviet-agent variety, at the FBI and CIA, who worry, but also infiltrators who, as True Believers, owe their sole loyalty to Islam and the cause of Islam.
[Posted by: Hugh at June 26, 2007 7:33 PM]
#2.
Crane is a convert to Islam, and his biography -- the one he himself composed -- shows other evidence of mental bizarrerie. He has a vested interest in protecting Islam, and protecting as well his own emotional investment, as a convert, in Islam. At this point, he is unlikely to say -- it would be impossible for him to say, given his mental makeup, to say or even to allow himself a glimmer of a hint, that --yes, you're right, I "reverted" to something I did not understand, that is quite different from what the naive revert may think, and that those who are born into Islam, and have managed to defect or escape -- and these are, essentially, all the best people, intellectually and morally superior people, who through no fault of their own are born into Islam -- such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and Azam Kamguian and Irfan Khawaja and a great many more, and in whose ranks I would also place those who, largely out of filial piety, continue to call themselves "cultural Muslims" or even, in the case of Magdi Allam, "Muslims."
That is one explanation, a more innocent one, for the behavior of this bizarre representative -- but aren't "reverts" from Leopold Weiss (Mustafa As'ad) to St. John Philby to John Walker Lindh and David Hicks and Richard Reid and Yvonne Ridley all of them just a little, or a very great deal, off?
Another, more sinister explanation, is that Crane wishes to keep up a collective game of "Let's Pretend." Let's tell Muslims there is nothing wrong with Islam; let's tell Muslims that yes, they are right, the "real" Islam is swell, and there is nothing to worry about. And in so doing, of course, we are also forced to tell another audience -- ourselves, the audience of Infidels --the same soothing untruths, soothing and dangerous, because we will then, presumably, not be sufficiently alert and wary to protect ourselves from, inter alia, the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest.
After all, if as Robert D. Crane claims, there is nothing wrong with Islam, and if his characterization of Robert Spencer is correct, if Spencer is indeed "diabolical" and prompted by the carefully-undefined "islamophobia," then we should do nothing to protect ourselves against, not only or merely terrorism, but against that Money Weapon (that supports the spread of Islam all over the Western and greater Infidel world), those well-financed carefully-targetted campagins of Da'wa, planned like a military campaigns, which is what they are, and of course demographic conquest, the beginnings of which were made possible by Infidel negligence and naivete -- the very negligence, the very naivete, that the Cranes of this world would in sweetly sinister fashion have continued until it is too late. Why not -- for Crane, as for other converts or reverts, Islam should cover the globe, Islam should dominate, Muslims should rule.
If, however, you do not agree with the true-believing likes of Robert D. Crane (or the propaganda spun by the armies of Western hirelings, academics, journalists, ex-diplomats, who are "only" doing it for the money), then you may not be eager to participate in this collective game, a game to be played by Infidels in order that Muslims will not be offended and pushed into the camp of the "extremists," if, in other words, you agree that the work Robert Spencer in his meticulous presentations, those devoid of rhetorical frills or furbelows, and based deliberately not on Western texts, but entirely on the texts of Islam, or on the commentaries on those texts by Muslims themselves, then you will not take kindly to the likes of Crane attempting to persuade you that we can "do more good" with Muslims by never telling these truths, to ourselves as well as to them, never bringing up the evidence of the texts (or for that matter the evidence of 1350 years of Jihad-conquest, and subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims of every kind.
No, you will not take kindly to such advice at all. You will instead regard Robert D. Crane as what he is: a transparent propagandist for Islam. Whether fully or semi-demented, is to me unclear. But it hardly matters.
[Posted by: Hugh at July 19, 2007 10:00 AM]
at January 26, 2008 9:00 AM
As I have always believed, Islam is the ROOT, terrorism, oppression, is the FRUITS. The aboved posted remarks should not come as a suprise.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 26, 2008 9:07 AM
From Article: The challenge posed by Geert Wilders’ ten-minute film attacking the Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam, is political.
I hope so. A political attack on political Islam is justified and called for.
From Article: using his challenge to the Prophet Muhammad and the religion of Islam in order to consolidate their own power by stealing the thunder from their radical opponents.
The governments of these nations have consolidated their power centuries ago. It is invading muslims who force them to protect their power from constant attacks to weaken it...Thats confirmed by this statement:
From article: The Dutch, however, would no doubt never ban it altogether, simply because the Dutch for decades, if not centuries, have had a reputation of liberality...
I know I am just nit picking this article, but if Crane wants to criticize Roberts work, his own work should be swami proof...
Posted by: duh_swami at January 26, 2008 9:44 AM
"I use the phrase “wilding” as a takeoff on the phrase invented to describe the gang that almost fatally beat the woman jogger in Central Park a few years ago, because this is what Geert Wilders is trying to do to the the Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam, and to the Qur’an."
From Bob Crane's article at the American Muslim link.
Okay, so let me break this down a bit, as I'm not as bright or as well educated as Dr. Crane...
He's using the phrase "wilding" to compare an incident in which an innocent citizen was nearly beaten to death by a gang, to one man's ten-minute film commentary. Dr. Crane is asserting that that Geert Wilders is attempting to beat Muhammed nearly to death, along with the Qur'an.
I'm trying...trying...still...trying to see how the two things are comparable. It's no use. I don't get the similarity in the situations.
Muhammed is already dead. The Qur'an is a book, a thing, an object, and can't be "killed" or nearly killed.
Well, call me ignorant, but to me this use of the word "wilding" just looks like a cheap and silly pun on Geert Wilders's surname.
at January 26, 2008 9:58 AM
That violent protest is "natural" says all there is to say about Muslims. They clearly don't have the courage of their convictions or they would be able to laugh off all of us.
They would have mocked "Submission" instead of killing its filmer and threatening its author.
at January 26, 2008 11:40 AM
Hmmmm, let's see.
OK, if I now decide to round up a few of my fellow Britons and start burning down mosques and violently attacking moonbats, will Dr Crane accept that this is a perfectly natural response to:
The 7/7 suicide murderers? The comparison of christians and jews to pigs and apes? Being compared to excrement as all kufars are najis? My total opposition to paedophilia and the oppression of women, and the offence caused to me by honour killings. Then ther's the disruption and chaos Islamists have forced upon on the British way of life especially travel security.
I'll stop there I think.
Or will this cowardly hipocrite declare my actions as "an unfair backlash on peaceful muslims"?
Dr Crane may have letters before and after his name - and I could add a few more but out of respect for Robert Spencer and my fellow readers I won't list them here - but the man is certifiably insane.
at January 26, 2008 12:44 PM
Robert sez:
"...only to find myself half-asleep and coffeeless in a debate with Muqtedar Khan of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy..."
Remember: Muhammedans wake up before 4 am for their first exercises, oops, I meant prayer..
By the time you get up for breakfast your Islamic neighbors may already be half done with the jihad in the street where you live....
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 26, 2008 1:14 PM
Duh. Of course violence would be natural. That's what the Muslim community does at the slightest perceived offense, like the name of a teddy bear for instance. The size of the perceived offense seems not to matter. It is entirely too hopeful to think the film will cause Europeans to rise up and drive Islam out of Europe (yet again).
Posted by: Rick at January 26, 2008 1:17 PM
Muslims Against Sharia denounce Crane's perverted interpretation if Islam. He does not speak for Muslims. Moderate Muslims will NOT have a violent or angry response to a depiction of the Prophet, however distasteful that depiction might be. Muslims who do react violently, are Islamofascists and do not represent all Muslims.
Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia at January 26, 2008 1:47 PM
"The first response that would be natural among Muslims is to fall into Geerts’ trap and resort to violent protests."
Is violent reaction is natural for Muslims then Islam is inherently violent and anti-other. If Muslims can not live together with critics then they should leave or be expelled.
Just look at Thailand. They kill teachers! Teachers, folks. And when the Muslims destroy Buddha statues, do the Buddhists kill anyone? Nope.
Their violence is not our fault. It is the choice of Muslims to respond this way or not. Unless Muslims understand this, they are not welcome in the wider human community. If they want to complain like civilized people, they are welcome like all other religions. If not, please don't wait for the boot print to appear on your backsides. Leave now.
Posted by: James Martel at January 26, 2008 1:50 PM
...Muslims would riot....naturally....it is what they do....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 26, 2008 2:04 PM
"American Muslim spokesman: "violent protests" to Dutch film on Qur'an would be "natural"
It would be more natural for the Dutch, and other Western nations, to defend themselves and their cultures, by expelling Muslims from their societies, but they won't. They've resigned themselves to living with the violent protest natural to Muslims.
The day is comming when Western nations won't be able to do anything even if they want to.
at January 26, 2008 2:11 PM
In Todays (Dutch) newspaper Geert Wilders revealed some details about his movie, including a picture of the openings shot of his movie.
I translated the newspapers article here:
http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2008/01/preview-geert-wilders-his-koran-movie.html
at January 26, 2008 2:56 PM
"Bob Crane, the notorious former Nixon aide and convert to Islam" - that sort of sums up the credibility issue for me.
Posted by: tanstaafl at January 26, 2008 3:33 PM
Muslims who do react violently, are Islamofascists and do not represent all Muslims.
Muslims against Sharia,
So when can we expect the rest of you to put down the Muslims who react violently? When can we expect to see you take up arms against your fellow Muslims who would destroy the societies that have (foolishly) welcomed them with open arms? When can we expect you to point these people out to authorities, to aid in their prosecution and to ensure that their view of Islam is rendered obsolete? When can we expect to see you withhold all charitable contributions to any "charity" run by Muslims?
Your words sound great. How will you back them up?
Posted by: PMK at January 26, 2008 4:03 PM
Robert,
I actually saw Crane speak this fall in Columbus, Ohio.
Much to my surprise (and to that of some of his fellow panelists), he expressed an agreemnet with you on many of your positions. First and foremost, he agreed that there was a need to marginalize the "extrme" interpreters of Islam by an acknowledgement of the violence and a critical review of the "sacred" texts.
This opened up a pandora's box, because he ended up battling the rest of the panel on which translation of "beat" was the best translation on how best to treat your woman.
I am curious if he has been pressured into this 'new' book, because after hearing him speak, I was confident that he had not been completely brainwashed.
He definitely ruffled some feathers that day.
You should reach out to him.
Agent M. Smart
Posted by: Agent Maxwell Smart at January 26, 2008 4:37 PM
He hopes to provoke radical responses by Muslims in order to support his party’s message that Islam must be purged from Europe and the Qur’an must be banned in public and criminalized even for private reading at home.
Given the lack of enthusiasm to show any self control on the part of Muslims, it is starting to sound like a better idea all the time. In fact, perhaps Mohammad should be called before a Human Rights Commission, to explain what he was feeling when he wrote the verses which later became the Koran.
The first response that would be natural among Muslims is to fall into Geerts’ trap and resort to violent protests.
That line says a lot.
Did the thought ever occur to Crane, that Muslims might show how wrong "Islamophobes" are by not falling for Wilders’ diabolical plot, and forgo killing people over a film, instead of continually proving us correct?
Heavy-handed measures against such protests could merely provoke greater violence....
Was Crane, as a young man eager to roam the book stacks of the conquered Reich, touched by Hitler's lament over a European continent of relatively passive Christians, instead of militant Muslims, from which to mold his perfect nation?
Does Crane see logic in making Hitler's dream come true in an Islamic Fourth Reich?
Whatever the case, he seems equally at home attempting to baffle with the BS of postmodern irrationalism; that warm, fuzzy, anti-logic gibberish of the extreme Left, and good old fashioned "heavy-handed" threats to violence.
If Hugh's question on Crane's level of dementedness is still out; I vote "fully", and dangerously so.
at January 26, 2008 4:53 PM
First and foremost, he agreed that there was a need to marginalize the "extreme" interpreters of Islam
Red Flag: Isolating that "tiny minority of extremists who are trying to hijack Islam" again -- in order to protect Islam from all criticism and condemnation.
by an acknowledgement of the violence and a critical review of the "sacred" texts.
Red Flag: By "critical review" is meant ways to "contextualize" all the dangerous passages of the sacred texts while still providing loopholes for Islamic supremacism through the back door, out of sight of the gullible Infidels who actually believe this horseshit.
This opened up a pandora's box, because he ended up battling the rest of the panel on which translation of "beat" was the best translation on how best to treat your woman.
Red Flag: The Koran in 4:34 says "and beat your women" (including both your wives and your sex slaves). There is nothing to argue or quibble about: it's right there in black and white. And it's wrong. On what point, then, would Crane be "battling the rest of the panel"? That 4:34 does not in fact say what it says? Sorry, that won't wash. And somehow I doubt that Crane "battled" the rest of the panel by insisting that the Koran in that verse was wrong and unjust and that therefore that verse should be expunged.
Posted by: cantor at January 26, 2008 6:16 PM
Just checked out the article at The American Muslim. I was disappointed to find that there is no opportunity to post a comment.
Posted by: USBeast at January 26, 2008 6:42 PM
Smart:
You should reach out to him.
The man has openly lied about the content of Islamic texts and my use of them, and has called me a devil from hell.
Not a likely foundation for a fruitful dialogue.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at January 26, 2008 6:53 PM
This Crane person is one weird character. He claims to be Cherokee and that the ancient Cherokee religion was Islam brought to the Caribbean (where the Cherokees originally lived) about 1310 by Muslims from the African kingdom of Mali looking for China, after some Mali people met Chinese Muslims at the hajj.
www.al-huda.com/Article_6of33.htm
Is this a spoof?
Posted by: devorgilla at January 26, 2008 7:44 PM
Devorgilla,
Yeah, I'd say this fellow has been caught in a fairly simple case of "revisionist history."
I live a mere stone's throw from Hillsboro, Indiana. Trust me, this neck of the woods belonged to the Miami tribe. There has never, ever been any hint of a Cherokee presence this far north.
Aside from his many other absurd conclusions, I think this "Dr." Crane is trying making another Muslim land grab at North America.
Remember the Golden Rule: A Muslim is a Muslim, therefore he can tell no truth!
If I ever see this reference used my any Muslim apologist in the future, I will laugh myself to death!
Thanks for the laugh!
Posted by: boneshack at January 26, 2008 11:11 PM
Islam is a meta-political ideology in that it wants to rule not only the literal world -by a global government- but to rule the human soul as well.
And to do both not by persuasion but through intimidation, terror, force of cruel laws on Earth, and by implacable and murderous intolerance for any criticism of its dogmas.
Whether these critiques are done historically (by examining the actions of Mohammad)/philosophically (by probing the belief structure of the Muslim mind)/or exigetically (via an analysis of the written tenets of Islam).
By stating that its followers should "naturally" erupt into violence when their cruel dogmas are exposed, Crane simply concedes that Islam is a creed built upon a core of superstitious thuggery.
Hysterical about icons, even as it proclaims a strict iconoclasm.
What is Islam so afraid of?
We will find out, no matter how much its rioting followers try to suppress the scrutiny.
Read the Koran.
Spread the dread.
Posted by: profitsbeard
at January 26, 2008 11:15 PM
Mr. Spencer,
To beg a moment of your time, but I think 'devorgilla' has stumbled on something rather significant here.
http://www.al-huda.com/Article_3of33.htm
Aside from the stupid thesis that the Cherokee Indians were in fact Muslims, now we know that Dr. Crane is a Shi'ite Muslim.
Now we have a backdoor into the further infiltration of the Shia Muslim doctrine of Islam into the United States.
Read the "articles" on the site. I would like your opinion.
Personally, I was truly floored that this indoctrination continues here in the USA, especially in Washington, DC.
at January 27, 2008 12:59 AM
For everyone, let me highlight this little gem from the link citation above:
Robert Crane, a former U.S. ambassador to Bahrain who converted to Shi'ite Islam and leads the Center for Understanding Islam in Somerset, N.J., said Shi'ites should lobby in Congress, found a top-notch Islamic university in North America and take part in Washington think tanks that help draft legislation."Muslims used to think big," he said, "but the problem is they don't anymore. We aren't going to lead in America until we do those things."
Several groups in the United States are dogging Muslims, he added. He included among those groups "radical evangelical" Christian leaders who have spoken on the evils they see in Islam.
"They pose a superficial threat," Mr. Crane said. "This is fringe talk, and I think most people know that.
"Moderate evangelicals" are more promising he said, referring to a May 9 meeting where 40 evangelical leaders distanced themselves from Christians who criticize Islam.
Most dangerous, Mr. Crane said, are "extremist neo conservatives" in think tanks such as the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Michael Cromartie, the center's vice president, and Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute question Islam's right to exist because of a lack of human rights and direct relation with God.
"Muslims have a bad record," in human rights, Mr. Crane said. But he added that Shariah, or Islamic law, should be revived because the religion was more tolerant in earlier centuries and, in theory, still is.
Sure! And I still believe in Santa Claus..
Dr. Robert Crane is a fool, and needs to be thoroughly discredited. But, please read the associated articles (from the link).
We are being infiltrated at a level far below the radar screen. Be aware. Be vigilant!
at January 27, 2008 1:26 AM
PMK
Muslims Against Sharia are that rare bird, the universalist, self-defined, pluralistic Muslim--and rejected as apostates and non-Muslims for their heterodoxy. So cut them some slack; they are our genuine friends, and do what they can--decrying evils as EVIL. What more can we non-Muslims ask of a group that is a voice crying out in the wilderness?
Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 1:34 AM
I'm sorry folks, I know it's 0'dark thirty in the freakin A.M., but this guy just infuriates me with his bullshit connections of Islam with Indiana!
Bear with my rant, and I'll shut up..
This fool said (quoted from):
http://www.al-huda.com/Article_6of33.htm
The Heritage of the Ani WayaOf the original seven Cherokee clans, three were officially disestablished by the federal government in 1905, when the Cherokee system of representative government was abolished in favor of a single chief appointed by the President of the United States and when the Cherokee religion was declared to be subversive and was officially abolished. One of these three was the Ani Waya, which means Clan of the Wolf. The function of this clan was to preserve the religion and the traditions.
After the loss of the written tradition, the oral history of the Cherokee religion passed down through the Ani Waya to what are called the traditionalists, including my great uncle Joseph Franklin Bever (who had another name in Oklahoma). He was one of the last formally trained Cherokee imams. He called the Athan every morning, but when challenged he replied simply that he was calling the hogs. Like all Cherokees, he started every prayer with "Ya Allah." All the prophets, starting with Abraham, are honored in the tradition. Until 1895, the Cherokees held the hajj, with tawaf, on the land of Uncle Henry Bever
(spelled Beaver among the Oklahoma Ani Waya) three miles southwest of Hillsboro, Indiana. The last custodian of this sacred land lived nearby when I lived a mile away until shortly after Pearl Harbor.Until the last hajj, Cherokees came all the way from Oklahoma to attend, but only those with native fluency in Cherokee were permitted to participate, including my great-grandmother, who was born seven years after the forced migration in 1839, known as the Trail of Tears, from North Carolina and Georgia to Oklahoma. She helped raise me. The last of those who were trained by my great uncle is Ben Mitman, my second cousin, who lives in Indianapolis and is now in his mid-nineties but, like most of my family in their advanced age, is still hale and hearty. My great grandmother, who spoke only Cherokee after she announced that it was time to die, had coal black hair down to her waist when she was in her nineties. We have a home video of another of my great grandmothers dancing at the age of ninety-six at one of the last great Bever-Crane clan reunions.
For the Cherokees, the Trail of Tears was the last of the great acts of ethnic cleansing that began with the American Revolution. The first period of genocide came when the younger generation sided with the British against the encroaching American settlers. The older traditionalists opposed war in principle and refused to be pawns in foreign wars. Although the wisdom of the traditionalists eventually triumphed in a feeble cultural renaissance after the American Revolution, this strategy of what Gandhi called satyagraha failed in the end. In 1839, despite the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshal that Cherokee sovereignty was higher than that of the State of Georgia, the president of the United States ordered the U.S. Army to drive the Cherokees in the middle of winter all the way to Oklahoma.
Although reportedly a third of them died en route while the federal troops watched, not all of this third actually died. Three groups broke off from the Trail of Tears, one going to Ohio and two to Indiana, because they feared extermination once they would arrive in Oklahoma. The Cherokee religion was best preserved for more than a century in an isolated Indiana group, because the Christian and U.S. governmental drive to stamp out the Cherokee religion in Oklahoma had significant success. My great uncle went from the other Indiana group near Hillsboro, Indiana, in 1903 at the age of 22 down to Oklahoma, where the formal religious training was headquartered.
In 1905, after he had studied for two years at the seminary there, the U.S. government abolished the Cherokee religion and imprisoned everyone who performed the salah publically. The Katoowa Society was formed to fight back, but they were crushed. My great uncle then spent two years trying to organize all the Native American tribes to fight for religious freedom, but despite some interest among the Navajo, Hopi, Crow, and Blackfeet, he failed miserably and so went back to Indiana where I knew him as a boy. I was impressed because he knew the names of 269 plants.
Straight from the jackass's mouth, and straight from the Islamic playbook.
But in case we missed a key phrase here, let me repeat, with emphasis:
Until the last hajj, Cherokees came all the way from Oklahoma to attend, but only those with native fluency in Cherokee were permitted to participate...
I apologize to everyone, but let it be very clear that I do NOT want the filth of Islam being anywhere associated with my "homeland."
Good Night!
Posted by: boneshack at January 27, 2008 3:44 AM
Thanks boneshack.
There's so much snakeoil around I just wondered if this guy Crane actually wrote this Cherokee stuff or if somebody just stuck his name on it to discredit him...
...then again, you would think that such a person (if such existed) might have been a bit subtler; in order to persuade readers with more than two brain cells...
The bit that made me laugh was the bit about the imam going out to call the adhan then claiming he was just shouting to the hogs...
Muslims don't keep hogs!
That would be taking takiyya a bit too far!
The guy is clearly barking mad.
Posted by: devorgilla at January 27, 2008 10:48 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)